New release from the Bridgeport Republican Town Commitee:
Republican Town Chairman John Slater today called for Mayor Finch and other city officials to fully explain why the city paid almost $400,000 to construct a roadway to the Stratford home of a politically connected developer. The project, which city officials say is part of the airport safety improvement project at Sikorsky Memorial Airport, was first reported by the Connecticut Post on Monday. See story here.
“I agree with the city’s airport manager that this project has ‘all the ingredients that something may not be right,'” Slater said. “So far city officials have failed to adequately explain the connection between this project, which appears to have substantially upgraded the existing roadway, and the airport safety improvements.”
“Even more importantly, the Mayor and Finance Director must explain why competitive bidding was waived in order to award the work to a company owned by the same developer,” Slater said. “This seems to have allowed him to improve his own property and make a profit on the work.”
“City ordinances generally require competitive bidding for all contracts valued at more than $7500, with limited exceptions for emergency purchases and specialized services,” he noted. “Nothing about this project seems to fall within those exceptions.”
Slater said that the City Council should demand answers from the responsible city officials.
“The City Council has the broad authority to oversee and investigate the operations of city government,” Slater said. “They should do that by requiring the administration to answer a number of questions:
“First, why is the City of Bridgeport paying for these improvements?
“Second, why is the City paying to substantially expand and upgrade this roadway from the one which previously existed?
“Third, was the Airport Commission aware of the roadway project? Was it approved by the Commission?
“Fourth, was competitive bidding waived for this project? If so, why?
“Fifth, was any effort made to evaluate the environmental impact of the roadway project? If not, why not?
“Sixth, if an environmental assessment was conducted, what were the results?”
Given the city’s long history of political favoritism, Bridgeport voters and taxpayers have every right to be skeptical about projects like this one, which seem to benefit the politically connected. They are entitled to a full explanation of what was done, by whom, and why.”
If John Ricci says it’s OK, then by God, it’s OK!
Sue Brannelly, co-chair of B&A is doing a great job for the people of Bridgeport, if you’re Finch you’ve got to love her.
www .ctpost.com/local/article/Bridgeport-pays-400-000-tab-for-gravel-road-4569762.php
“Don’t rock the boat” seems to be the motto of this administration. Sadly, that philosophy seems to extend to the members of the City Council, who have shown little interest in the oversight they are supposed to provide. That’s true whether the issue is botched snow removal or raises for cronies or this questionable project.
The voters and taxpayers of Bridgeport deserve better from their elected officials.
Nothing to see here, people. Keep moving. Nothing to be concerned about.
This seems to cry out for a class-action lawsuit.
Isn’t it a conflict of interest to allow this guy to bid on a project that directly benefits him? Paging Attorney–Council President–Airport Commissioner McCarthy, “I know nothing and I can prove it.”
The plot thickens:
www .ctpost.com/local/article/Long-and-winding-road-4573032.php
John Ricci would never let anything happen regarding the airport expansion that could be construed as unethical.
Yet another up yours taxpayers–really? Is there no way to stop this?
I am not sure anyone is truly in charge of this issue at the moment. Mark Anastasi informs us in his CT Post letter to the editor this morning that everything is OK. Isn’t that reassuring?
Where did the City find the $400,000? (Last night the March reports indicated to Council members the City is projected to finish the year with a $2.5 Million deficit. Is that for real? Does the Finance office work to create a “real projection” of appropriations each month? If they don’t, my strong suspicion, why does it take so long for them to put the report out?) Did it come from City current operating money? Was it part of a Capital Budget borrowing project approved when and reported where? Is it any part of Federal funding? I am patient, obviously. Someone can answer these questions. Time will tell.
John,
As you know, the City Attorney is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. The City’s governance structure and finances are out of control and it’s time for action to enhance transparency and accountability.
Really? Dave, you get a big Homer Simpson Doh!
Anastasi may be a lot of things but he is not stupid and while this scheme is wrong and unethical it may very well be legal.
Class action lawsuit??? Go David Walker–bring in the FEDS!
Walker is too busy promoting schemes to privatize public assets … aren’t you, Dave?
*** Could be this gravel driveway has lots of “political potholes,” no? *** LET’S SEE WHERE JEPSON TAKES THIS ONE. ***
The law represents the floor of acceptable behavior. There are higher ethical and moral standards people, especially public servants, should strive to meet. Public officials should lead by example and reach for the ceiling rather than crawl on the floor. They should also be held accountable if they do so.